TELLING THE STORY OF YOUR LIFE. This article describes a branch of psychological research that I was unaware of. The research is based on analyzing two-hour interviews in which people tell their life stories. One conclusion is familiar: that it matters whether you tell your life story focusing on things that went wrong or on lucky turns of plot, a variant of the glass half full metaphor. Dan McAdams, who may have originated the line of research, speaks of the optimistic point of view as a redemption story line which he thinks is important in American history and literature. People do better when they view problems as challenges to be overcome rather than as character flaws. Another finding is that people who can look at painful past situations from a third person’s perspective rather than as a vivid first person memory deal with those situations better. I guess this last result would argue that actors should be better grounded than most people–contrary to popular conception– because they are trained to look at things from the spectator’s point of view. Unless, of course, they take the risk of relying too much on emotional recall.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
I disagree. Actors don’t look at things from a spectator’s point of view. They are trained to look at things from the perspective of their own characters. It is called “justification.” I remember a young man I knew years ago who told me he had ruined a production of “Oklahoma” by playing Judd Frye so sympathetically, that Curly, the hero, came out looking like a nasty murderer. He had overdone the justification.
The person who looks at the play from the spectator’s point of view is the director. And that’s why it’s so hard to be in a play you’re directing. You don’t get the perspective from “out there” when you’re in the scene.